The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1887-03-31
VOL. XVI.
COMMERCIAL FERrILIzEns.

(From the southern Cultivator ....
M tits quite common to hear complaints
OF the worthlessness Of u large proper
ton of the commercial fertilizers sold to
farmers. That some of these complaints
are we'll founded there is little doubt.
That many moro are unreasonable ana
unjust is quite probable. Many farmers
insist that the fertilizers of late years are
not so good as those of ten or twelve
years or more back. Let us look INTO
the matter little.
The average farmer Judges OF the
merits or quality of u fertilizer ny the
effects of the same on the crop to which
it was applied. Indeed, this is the only
way he can safely dotermlne whether Il
fertilizer has returned a falr percentage
on the Investment. But how often Is it
true that the crop grows oil nicely and
everything appears to promise good
yield, and at last somo casualty of
drought, or wet OF frost, cuts oil the
crop. During, the early, and probably
is pleased with tho fertilizer; but when
wants his pay, and the bacon and flour
and dry goods bills, the doctors bill,
etc, must be met--the cotton won't go
round. The dry weather, or the worms,
or the "storm III September, or some
one or more Of the many casualties to
which cotton is liable, has cut off tho
crop. May be the fertilizer was to
blame. But the fertilizer did not cause
the storm, nor the drought, nor the
WORMS; neither could it prevent these
casualties.
On the other hand, if the plant starts
oil well and the seasons and other con-
ditions continue auspicious to the end of
the harvest, and the farmer gathers
large crop, he is apt to be pleased with
the fertilizer he used, as well rs every
thing that was connected with the crop.
One very important precautiOn is over
looked by Il largo majority OF farmers
who use commercial fertilizers, viz: the
test of the scales. 1t is unreasonable to
insist that fertilizer has "dono the crop
no good" when no test or experiment
rows have been set apart, the fertilizer
carefully weighed and distributed, and
the yield OF the crop gathered and
weighed under the very eye of the pro-
prietor. With such atest plat, or sew
eral OF them, accurately conducted, it is
possible to easily and certainly determ-
inc what has been the economic result.
On different soils and with different sea-
will be discordant or different, even
when the identical fertilizer has been
used. One of the most important con-
ditions-or rather circumstances-tha
affects the question of profit when the
money has been paid, or is to be paid
for the fertilizer, is the price OF cotton.
But ii to be paid for in cotton it docs not
affect the question at all.
Now, what is fair profit on the in
vestment in q fertilizer? y farmer ought
to be well content to realize or 10 per
cent. per annum profit on all the fixed
and working capital employed i'll his
business after allowing a reasonable sum
for his services and Tor wear and tear,
Insurance, etc. He would gladly rent
out his land, or portion of it, on such
terms, and devote his personal attention
to something else. Then why should
he expect any greater per cent profit,
zone year with another" on his invest
ment III fertilizer?
One ton of standard fertilizers, hauled
ana distributed in the soil, COSTS say
thirty $500 dollars cash. The money is
paid--say April Island the crop is
harvested and ready for market-say
October lst-siX months. Suppose the
increased yield of cotton, after deducting
the extra expenses Of packing and
ginning, and adding the value Of the
extra seed, is thirty-1iyc dollars, or five
dollars clear profit. Five dollars net in
crease i'll the value of the crop due to
use of ton of fertilizer would not be
considered unusual; it is probably much
below the average results. But five dol
lars on thirty dollars, for six months, is
l6S per cent, or 49, per cent. Der
annum! Or suppose $50 pounds of lint
cotton is the price agreed upon for the
fertilizer, payable November lst, and
that the increased yield is .i25 pounds.
We now have rs pounds Of lint cotton
more than enough to pay for the fer
tiIizer.
No reasonable man will be likely to
deny the fairness of the above figures
The per cont. increase credited to the
fertilizer IS probably less than the aver
ago results of the use of commercial fer
hlIzers III gcncral-good, bad and in
dI1terent--1or series Of years together,
say for the last ten years. 1T is true that
they are not so great as for the preced-
ing period OF ten years, or, i'll other
words, that commercial fertilizers do not
yield as good results on the same fields
as they did ten or fifteen years ago. This
may be accounted for without assuming
that the quality of commercial fertilizers
has been lowered. Chemical analysis
shows that they have not. Field tests
on similar lands that have not been ''run
to death" in cotton with concentrated
fertilizers prove that the same results
can now be Secured as before, with aver
age fertilizers of the present time. More
over, the price of standard fertilizers has
steadily declined--the cost of material
and manipulation being less and compe-
tllon reducing the profits Of the manu-
facturers and dealers.
What, then, is the difficulty? DO
those farmers who refrain from the use
OF commercial fertilizers succeed any
better? If they do, is their prosperity
due to their policy in this respect, or Is
it not in spite of it, and because Of ok.
ceptional skill, industry, economy
especially III the utilizing home man2ri.
al resources2 When the latter policy is
supplemented by the iudicion%s % GSnd q
hberaD use Of the best grades of com.
mercial fertilizing materials, comnosfod